A good deal of the bandwith of human conversation is social interaction, not merely information content. Some of this social interaction takes the form of prosody - the pitch and variation of intonation of speech. Some of this social signaling takes the form of adherence to standards of expression or the lack thereof. (Some social interaction also takes place non-verbally as well). This being so, consider that grammar and its proper application is a social marker. Yes, one can make oneself understood speaking in a grammatically incorrect fashion, but by doing so, one announces one's social status very loudly to those who do take the care to express themselves correctly. If one wishes to be known as someone who never had the opportunity, or never took the trouble to learn proper grammar, then one could continue to abuse the standards of spoken or written language. Otherwise, one should at least learn these standards so one has the option of using them in the socially appropriate situations, such as publication, public speaking to large and diverse audiences, business contexts, etc. Not all one's conversations are between oneself and one's best friends or closest relatives.
That's "Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe," because all of those are real names. "Screwem," on the other hand is *not* a real name. See? "Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe" could actually be the name of a real firm.
Just to pick nits, final vowels in french words are actually pronounced but almost swallowed. To the english speaker's ear "vive" sounds as if it vere "veev" but it is actually closer to "VEEVe" - where caps indicate louder sounds.
So there is actually a second syllable in "vive" - it's just very subtle.
Not if we purposely draw an explicit distinction between "deliberate choosing" and "randomly generated." In other words by deliberately choosing to have predominantly random influences you have deliberately chosen to not make art.
I believe that most people make such a distinction all the time, and believe that it should be applied to the art/not-art distinction.
This gives us one of the elements of a definition of art:
1. Deliberate choosing not random. others being: 2. Masterful use of medium/media (i.e., skill). 3. Expression of meaning and/or feeling.
I would further assert that it is effectively impossible to display mastery of a medium unless one uses it deliberately, so number 1 above is subsumed by number 2.
For those looking for aesthetics, note that this comes from the mastery of the medium. This is why even horrid images (such as some of Goya's allegories) can be aesthetically pleasing.
So, art is the expression of meaning and/or feeling by means of masterful use of a particular medium or media.
Most of the tie-a-brush-to-a-cat's-tail type of "contemporary" art fails on the deliberate and masterful test. Note that the viewer often attributes meaning and/or feeling to even random things, so crap-art is less likely to fail on this basis. Thus the success of abstract expressionism [ducks].
With respect, the new breed of statically typed functional languages do not begin to provide "essentially all of the things that made lisp great in the 60s." To understand why see Paul Graham's article on why programmer productivity is destroyed by requiring type declarations[1]. Even with a REPL, languages like Haskell screw the programmer by not allowing heterogenous lists by default. This requires the programmer to take time away from exploratory programming to do type declaration book keeping to placate the type-obsessed compiler.
[1]For example, it is a huge win in developing software to have an interactive toplevel, what in Lisp is called a read-eval-print loop. And when you have one this has real effects on the design of the language. It would not work well for a language where you have to declare variables before using them, for example. When you're just typing expressions into the toplevel, you want to be able to set x to some value and then start doing things to x. You don't want to have to declare the type of x first. You may dispute either of the premises, but if a language has to have a toplevel to be convenient, and mandatory type declarations are incompatible with a toplevel, then no language that makes type declarations mandatory could be convenient to program in. - Paul Graham
Yes, Apple could sue for precisely the reason you mention. MS is already a monopoly by law (confirmed by the Supreme Court, no less). Any anti-competitive move that leverages their OS monopooly is a valid cause of action against them.
That said, it only pays to sue if doing so gets you something. Suing MS will not make them update Office-Mac any faster. Yes, you might get a big chunk of cash, but better to be prepared for the eventuality by having the Safari of Office Suites under development. This is the point of.doc compatibility in TextEdit, and the rumored iWorks.
IMHO, legacy apps that are content to go this route are asking to have their lunch eaten by agressive, smaller players, who are willing to do their homework and produce a real Cocoa competitor.
Mac OS X users really do notice the clunkiness of Carbon ports to Mac OS X, and will eagerly switch to a well done Cocoa replacement.
No, queasy is the right word. MS feel compelled to use custom routines for everything. The result is that habits learned in many other applications are not transferable.
For example, a friend of mine recently switched from using Apple's Mail.app to Outlook, because Outlook is part of Office-Mac. He did something accidentally, that re-sorted all of his mail messages by some unknown criterion.
In a standard Mac OS X app, you just click on the relevant column heading, and the list is sorted by that criterion - click on Date Received, and all the messages are sorted by Date Received. Click again, and they're sorted in reverse order.
But MS must do everything in a non-platform-standard way. So clicking on the column header did not sort the messages as desired, and my friend was left to search through the menus and preferences for twenty minutes hoping to find some hint as to how to re sort his mail the way it had been before. Wasted time due to violations of user interface standards - I'm surprised MS hasn't patented it - it's virtually their trademark.
If Apple made a firm commitment to supporting X11 transparently alongside Carbon and Cocoa...
...then Mac OS X would become just another flavor of Linux. Not likely to happen any time soon. Apple realize that the only thing that differentiates their platform is the ease of use and integration of software with software and software with hardware. Apple most certainly doesn't want users confusing the abomination that is X11 with Aqua/Cocoa. X11 and the native Aqua GUI will remain noticeably separate for as long as Mac OS X computers are a key component of Apple's bottom line. Similar logic applies to why Classic is so jarringly distinct from Aqua (hint: if the integration were seamless, why would developers ever do a native Mac OS X port?)
You, and others in this thread consistently misuse the term 'monopoly.'
Monopoly means, under US law, sufficient market power to set the price for one's product without regard to the price of competitors' offerings.
Apple has no such market power. Apple must price their computer/OS combo with careful consideration to the cost of comparably configured PCs with Windows, or they will go out of business. So, no, Apple does not have a monopoly.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has been judged by a Federal court, (a finding of fact upheld by the US Supreme Court, BTW), to have a Monopoly in PC operating systems. This means that MS can price Windows without regard for the price of, for example, Linux. Clearly, this is the case - Linux can be had for the cost of a blank CD ( $1.00). Even the most bargain basement price for Windows is an order of magnitude more expensive.
In the trivial lay sense you use 'monopoly,' every commercial entity has a monopoly: The Dunkin Donuts at Porter Square has a 'monopoly' on donuts in Porter Square; The Kinko's next door has a 'monopoly' on copying services on that block, etc. This is simply a lay misuse of the term 'monopoly,' and has nothing to do with the legal definition of term, which legal definition has been found by Federal Courts to apply to Microsoft, not to Apple.
Other people are afraid, and despite efforts to characterize the last election as being about "values," the reality is that Bush was reelected because a significant majority, and especially a significant majority of women, believed that he would deal with terrorism better.
The reality is that people act normal, and don't talk about it much, but when it came time to vote, they voted on the basis of fear of terrorism. So the OP was right, the issue was overblown and distorted (raising the terror alert level right after the DNC on the basis of 18 month old information anyone?) for a reason, to ensure Bush's reelection.
It is a cliche because it is true. Real estate is an order of magnitude more precious in Japan than in the United States - simply divide the total population by the total land area of the country:
Japan: 130 million / 395,000 km2 = ~ 340 persons/km2
U.S: 291 million / 9 million km2 =~ 32 persons/km2
This is a really poor model unless you manage to work your way through all 37 in a week end. By the time you get to number 38, even if she is only 70% as good as the previous best, (say number 9), number 38 is quite likely a decade or more younger than number 9 now is (and consequently, that much hotter), since it's taken you 15 years to work your way through 37 girl friends. So you'd do well to snap up 38, before you're too old and burnt out to land anyone even half as good as number 9 was!
This is likely false. It is a common misconception that the principal reason for the incest taboo is the prevention harmful inbreeding. The reality is that half siblings are not much more closely related than first cousins, and in many societies, first cousin marriage was traditionally the preferred form of marriage. It should also be recalled that traditionally, the Pharaohs married (and conceived heirs by) their full sisters.
It is just as likely that we have an incest taboo to prevent social inbreeding. Any clan that allowed incest would run the risk of being dangerously cut off from the rest of the world. With no marriage, trade or other social ties, such a group would have no allies, and many enemies ("why not kill them - they never trade with us, don't exchange brides with us..."). Any such socially isolated incestuous groups were wiped out long ago by their neighbors, who did form alliances based on intermarriage with others.
Ditto with Safari 1.2.4 (v125.12) under Mac OS X 10.3.6. None of the various permutations (new window, with popup blocker, withouth popup blocker, etc.) shows the vulnerability.
If you look at the statistics compiled by the investigators, you'll see that the Window XP SP1 box and the Mac OS X 10.3.5 box both logged the overwhelming majority of attacks (45% each), and equal to within less than 1%.
The Windows box was compromised multiple times. The Mac OS X box was never compromised. The Linux box was never compromised, but it only was hit a tiny fraction of the times the Mac OS X and Win XP SP1 boxes were.
Oddly, the authors conclude that the best systems are Linux, and Win XP SP2. WTF?
The obvious winner is the platform that sustained the highest number of attacks with the fewest number of compromises. That would be Mac OS X, with essentially half of all the attacks (just like Win XP SP1) but ZERO successful compromises.
The authors seem to be bending over backwards to come up with a "winner" that runs on intel compatible hardware (Linux and Win XP SP2) but the obvious choice is Mac OS X.
"if I have to think about them, even for a second, I'm going to kill someone."
I feel the same way about end users.
Though modded as Funny, your post explains why Linux desktop software (as opposed to server software) will continue to suck loudly long into the future.
To make Apple quality desktop software, you need to actually like and care about end users.
This thread is mostly a giant waste. The whole "complexity" issue is largely invisible in the Apple world, because Apple have made managing complexity a priority for twenty years. Meanwhile, the dominiant platform vendor, Microsoft, has made integration a distant afterthought for the last two decades. Why is anyone surprised that "complexity" is a problem on the MS side of the fence? Why would MIT's Media Lab need to start a project to "solve" this problem? The solution has been staring you in the face the whole time, but most are too proud/stubborn/macho to admit it.
Get A Mac. Believe me, Mac using workers do not lose a week a year (read the Economist article for cite) wrestling with their misbehaving computers. Mac networks are not down for an unplanned 175 hours each year. This is considered "normal" only in the Windows PC world.
See, this is a joke. The Republicans impeached Clinton. So your parent is suggesting that we "support" W the same way the Republicans "supported" Clinton - by impeaching W.
I hope this is a joke, because plotters are laughably inadequate to the task of producing the range of brush marks found in master oil paintings. Remember, painters vary: * degree of paint mixing * brush load * brush angle (varying even within a single stroke) both relative to canvas and relative to stroke direction. * brush rotation (along the axis of the handle, also varying even within a single stroke) * brush pressure (varying even within a single stroke) * brush direction (of course varying within a single stroke)
These would require a plotter with:
* Near human artificial vision feedback system * pressure sensitive (in all 3 dimensions) brush grip with feedback * real time control of said grip, based on said feedback, along all three axes integrated with above mentioned artificial vision system * integration of above with the some conceptual/emotional impact engine (in real time, of course) to guide and/or constrain the marks made to subordinate them to an overall plan or vision for the work.
Even though a six year old could paint like Matisse, you still need Matisse to make a Matisse.
To clarify, and maybe this is what you meant, Even though it looks as if a six year old could paint like Matisse, a six year old actually could not.
The minimalism of the whole Modern movement gives the illusion of childish simplicity. It is, in fact, a very studied simplicity, based on systematic study of art history, experimentation, and determination of what can be omitted, modified, and simplified, and still yield an aesthetically pleasing image.
Analogy: Einstein reduced some very complex physics to e=mc^2. If we gave a six year old in 1900 (i.e., before Einstein's development of Special Relativity) all the numerals, symbols and symbolic constants used in physics, as wooden blocks, what is the chance that the six year old would consistently come up with e=mc^2 just fiddling around?
Mods, please, in the name of all that is sane, in the name of ever having intelligent discussions ever again on Slashdot, in the name of actually reading the fscking article, MOD PARENT UP!!!
Slashdot Mirror
A good deal of the bandwith of human conversation is social interaction, not merely information content. Some of this social interaction takes the form of prosody - the pitch and variation of intonation of speech. Some of this social signaling takes the form of adherence to standards of expression or the lack thereof. (Some social interaction also takes place non-verbally as well).
This being so, consider that grammar and its proper application is a social marker. Yes, one can make oneself understood speaking in a grammatically incorrect fashion, but by doing so, one announces one's social status very loudly to those who do take the care to express themselves correctly. If one wishes to be known as someone who never had the opportunity, or never took the trouble to learn proper grammar, then one could continue to abuse the standards of spoken or written language. Otherwise, one should at least learn these standards so one has the option of using them in the socially appropriate situations, such as publication, public speaking to large and diverse audiences, business contexts, etc. Not all one's conversations are between oneself and one's best friends or closest relatives.
That's "Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe," because all of those are real names. "Screwem," on the other hand is *not* a real name. See? "Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe" could actually be the name of a real firm.
BTW, their "offices" overlook Harvard Square.
01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
Binary ASCII grammar and spelling nazi says that should be:
1001001 0100000 1100001 1101101 0100000 1101110 1101111 1110100 0100000 1100001 0100000 1101100 1100001 1110111 1111001 1100101 1110010 0101110
(i.e. "I am not a lawyer." rather than "iamnotalawyer")
Just to pick nits, final vowels in french words are actually pronounced but almost swallowed. To the english speaker's ear "vive" sounds as if it vere "veev" but it is actually closer to "VEEVe" - where caps indicate louder sounds.
So there is actually a second syllable in "vive" - it's just very subtle.
Not if we purposely draw an explicit distinction between "deliberate choosing" and "randomly generated." In other words by deliberately choosing to have predominantly random influences you have deliberately chosen to not make art.
I believe that most people make such a distinction all the time, and believe that it should be applied to the art/not-art distinction.
This gives us one of the elements of a definition of art:
1. Deliberate choosing not random.
others being:
2. Masterful use of medium/media (i.e., skill).
3. Expression of meaning and/or feeling.
I would further assert that it is effectively impossible to display mastery of a medium unless one uses it deliberately, so number 1 above is subsumed by number 2.
For those looking for aesthetics, note that this comes from the mastery of the medium. This is why even horrid images (such as some of Goya's allegories) can be aesthetically pleasing.
So, art is the expression of meaning and/or feeling by means of masterful use of a particular medium or media.
Most of the tie-a-brush-to-a-cat's-tail type of "contemporary" art fails on the deliberate and masterful test. Note that the viewer often attributes meaning and/or feeling to even random things, so crap-art is less likely to fail on this basis. Thus the success of abstract expressionism [ducks].
With respect, the new breed of statically typed functional languages do not begin to provide "essentially all of the things that made lisp great in the 60s." To understand why see Paul Graham's article on why programmer productivity is destroyed by requiring type declarations[1]. Even with a REPL, languages like Haskell screw the programmer by not allowing heterogenous lists by default. This requires the programmer to take time away from exploratory programming to do type declaration book keeping to placate the type-obsessed compiler.
[1]For example, it is a huge win in developing software to have an interactive toplevel, what in Lisp is called a read-eval-print loop. And when you have one this has real effects on the design of the language. It would not work well for a language where you have to declare variables before using them, for example. When you're just typing expressions into the toplevel, you want to be able to set x to some value and then start doing things to x. You don't want to have to declare the type of x first. You may dispute either of the premises, but if a language has to have a toplevel to be convenient, and mandatory type declarations are incompatible with a toplevel, then no language that makes type declarations mandatory could be convenient to program in.
- Paul Graham
'They' is plural. There is no "singular they." Where did you get this bizzare notion?
Nominative Case (i.e., subject of the sentence):
person singular plural
1st_______ I_______We
2nd_____ You_____You
3rd_____He, She__They
This has been standard English for about 5 centuries now.
Yes, Apple could sue for precisely the reason you mention. MS is already a monopoly by law (confirmed by the Supreme Court, no less). Any anti-competitive move that leverages their OS monopooly is a valid cause of action against them.
.doc compatibility in TextEdit, and the rumored iWorks.
That said, it only pays to sue if doing so gets you something. Suing MS will not make them update Office-Mac any faster. Yes, you might get a big chunk of cash, but better to be prepared for the eventuality by having the Safari of Office Suites under development. This is the point of
IMHO, legacy apps that are content to go this route are asking to have their lunch eaten by agressive, smaller players, who are willing to do their homework and produce a real Cocoa competitor.
Mac OS X users really do notice the clunkiness of Carbon ports to Mac OS X, and will eagerly switch to a well done Cocoa replacement.
No, queasy is the right word. MS feel compelled to use custom routines for everything. The result is that habits learned in many other applications are not transferable.
For example, a friend of mine recently switched from using Apple's Mail.app to Outlook, because Outlook is part of Office-Mac. He did something accidentally, that re-sorted all of his mail messages by some unknown criterion.
In a standard Mac OS X app, you just click on the relevant column heading, and the list is sorted by that criterion - click on Date Received, and all the messages are sorted by Date Received. Click again, and they're sorted in reverse order.
But MS must do everything in a non-platform-standard way. So clicking on the column header did not sort the messages as desired, and my friend was left to search through the menus and preferences for twenty minutes hoping to find some hint as to how to re sort his mail the way it had been before. Wasted time due to violations of user interface standards - I'm surprised MS hasn't patented it - it's virtually their trademark.
If Apple made a firm commitment to supporting X11 transparently alongside Carbon and Cocoa...
...then Mac OS X would become just another flavor of Linux. Not likely to happen any time soon. Apple realize that the only thing that differentiates their platform is the ease of use and integration of software with software and software with hardware. Apple most certainly doesn't want users confusing the abomination that is X11 with Aqua/Cocoa. X11 and the native Aqua GUI will remain noticeably separate for as long as Mac OS X computers are a key component of Apple's bottom line. Similar logic applies to why Classic is so jarringly distinct from Aqua (hint: if the integration were seamless, why would developers ever do a native Mac OS X port?)
You, and others in this thread consistently misuse the term 'monopoly.'
Monopoly means, under US law, sufficient market power to set the price for one's product without regard to the price of competitors' offerings.
Apple has no such market power. Apple must price their computer/OS combo with careful consideration to the cost of comparably configured PCs with Windows, or they will go out of business. So, no, Apple does not have a monopoly.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has been judged by a Federal court, (a finding of fact upheld by the US Supreme Court, BTW), to have a Monopoly in PC operating systems. This means that MS can price Windows without regard for the price of, for example, Linux. Clearly, this is the case - Linux can be had for the cost of a blank CD ( $1.00). Even the most bargain basement price for Windows is an order of magnitude more expensive.
In the trivial lay sense you use 'monopoly,' every commercial entity has a monopoly: The Dunkin Donuts at Porter Square has a 'monopoly' on donuts in Porter Square; The Kinko's next door has a 'monopoly' on copying services on that block, etc. This is simply a lay misuse of the term 'monopoly,' and has nothing to do with the legal definition of term, which legal definition has been found by Federal Courts to apply to Microsoft, not to Apple.
I guess we'll find out the truth when we are dead.
Bad guess. If there is no afterlife, when you die, you'll simply cease to exist, and won't find anything out.
Other people are afraid, and despite efforts to characterize the last election as being about "values," the reality is that Bush was reelected because a significant majority, and especially a significant majority of women, believed that he would deal with terrorism better.
The reality is that people act normal, and don't talk about it much, but when it came time to vote, they voted on the basis of fear of terrorism. So the OP was right, the issue was overblown and distorted (raising the terror alert level right after the DNC on the basis of 18 month old information anyone?) for a reason, to ensure Bush's reelection.
It is a cliche because it is true. Real estate is an order of magnitude more precious in Japan than in the United States - simply divide the total population by the total land area of the country:
Japan: 130 million / 395,000 km2 = ~ 340 persons/km2
U.S: 291 million / 9 million km2 =~ 32 persons/km2
See: Japan Statistics and U.S. Statistics for the exact figures.
This is a really poor model unless you manage to work your way through all 37 in a week end. By the time you get to number 38, even if she is only 70% as good as the previous best, (say number 9), number 38 is quite likely a decade or more younger than number 9 now is (and consequently, that much hotter), since it's taken you 15 years to work your way through 37 girl friends. So you'd do well to snap up 38, before you're too old and burnt out to land anyone even half as good as number 9 was!
This is likely false. It is a common misconception that the principal reason for the incest taboo is the prevention harmful inbreeding. The reality is that half siblings are not much more closely related than first cousins, and in many societies, first cousin marriage was traditionally the preferred form of marriage. It should also be recalled that traditionally, the Pharaohs married (and conceived heirs by) their full sisters.
It is just as likely that we have an incest taboo to prevent social inbreeding. Any clan that allowed incest would run the risk of being dangerously cut off from the rest of the world. With no marriage, trade or other social ties, such a group would have no allies, and many enemies ("why not kill them - they never trade with us, don't exchange brides with us..."). Any such socially isolated incestuous groups were wiped out long ago by their neighbors, who did form alliances based on intermarriage with others.
Ditto with Safari 1.2.4 (v125.12) under Mac OS X 10.3.6. None of the various permutations (new window, with popup blocker, withouth popup blocker, etc.) shows the vulnerability.
If you look at the statistics compiled by the investigators, you'll see that the Window XP SP1 box and the Mac OS X 10.3.5 box both logged the overwhelming majority of attacks (45% each), and equal to within less than 1%.
The Windows box was compromised multiple times. The Mac OS X box was never compromised. The Linux box was never compromised, but it only was hit a tiny fraction of the times the Mac OS X and Win XP SP1 boxes were.
Oddly, the authors conclude that the best systems are Linux, and Win XP SP2. WTF?
The obvious winner is the platform that sustained the highest number of attacks with the fewest number of compromises. That would be Mac OS X, with essentially half of all the attacks (just like Win XP SP1) but ZERO successful compromises.
The authors seem to be bending over backwards to come up with a "winner" that runs on intel compatible hardware (Linux and Win XP SP2) but the obvious choice is Mac OS X.
Why the biased interpretations?
"if I have to think about them, even for a second, I'm going to kill someone."
I feel the same way about end users.
Though modded as Funny, your post explains why Linux desktop software (as opposed to server software) will continue to suck loudly long into the future.
To make Apple quality desktop software, you need to actually like and care about end users.
This thread is mostly a giant waste. The whole "complexity" issue is largely invisible in the Apple world, because Apple have made managing complexity a priority for twenty years. Meanwhile, the dominiant platform vendor, Microsoft, has made integration a distant afterthought for the last two decades. Why is anyone surprised that "complexity" is a problem on the MS side of the fence? Why would MIT's Media Lab need to start a project to "solve" this problem? The solution has been staring you in the face the whole time, but most are too proud/stubborn/macho to admit it.
Get A Mac. Believe me, Mac using workers do not lose a week a year (read the Economist article for cite) wrestling with their misbehaving computers. Mac networks are not down for an unplanned 175 hours each year. This is considered "normal" only in the Windows PC world.
Did you read your parent?
Just like the Republicans did for Clinton.
See, this is a joke. The Republicans impeached Clinton. So your parent is suggesting that we "support" W the same way the Republicans "supported" Clinton - by impeaching W.
I hope this is a joke, because plotters are laughably inadequate to the task of producing the range of brush marks found in master oil paintings. Remember, painters vary:
* degree of paint mixing
* brush load
* brush angle (varying even within a single stroke) both relative to canvas and relative to stroke direction.
* brush rotation (along the axis of the handle, also varying even within a single stroke)
* brush pressure (varying even within a single stroke)
* brush direction (of course varying within a single stroke)
These would require a plotter with:
* Near human artificial vision feedback system
* pressure sensitive (in all 3 dimensions) brush grip with feedback
* real time control of said grip, based on said feedback, along all three axes integrated with above mentioned artificial vision system
* integration of above with the some conceptual/emotional impact engine (in real time, of course) to guide and/or constrain the marks made to subordinate them to an overall plan or vision for the work.
Sounds pretty AI-complete to me.
Even though a six year old could paint like Matisse, you still need Matisse to make a Matisse.
To clarify, and maybe this is what you meant, Even though it looks as if a six year old could paint like Matisse, a six year old actually could not.
The minimalism of the whole Modern movement gives the illusion of childish simplicity. It is, in fact, a very studied simplicity, based on systematic study of art history, experimentation, and determination of what can be omitted, modified, and simplified, and still yield an aesthetically pleasing image.
Analogy: Einstein reduced some very complex physics to e=mc^2. If we gave a six year old in 1900 (i.e., before Einstein's development of Special Relativity) all the numerals, symbols and symbolic constants used in physics, as wooden blocks, what is the chance that the six year old would consistently come up with e=mc^2 just fiddling around?
Mods, please, in the name of all that is sane, in the name of ever having intelligent discussions ever again on Slashdot, in the name of actually reading the fscking article, MOD PARENT UP!!!